User talk:Seresin/Archive 32

This page is an archive of User Talk:Seresin (or perhaps something else). If you wish to discuss something here, feel free to bring it up again. The history for this page is here, not on the main talk page. Thanks.

Archives Until August 2007 — September 2007 October 2007 — November 2007 December 2007 — January 2008 February 2008 — March 2008 April 2008 — May 2008 June 2008 — July 2008 August 2008 — September 2008 October 2008 — November 2008 December 2008 — January 2009 February 2009 — March 2009 April 2009 — May 2009 June 2009 — July 2009 August 2009 — September 2009 October 2009 — November 2009 December 2009 — January 2010 February 2010 — March 2010 April 2010 — May 2010 June 2010 — to June 2013 to November 2014

Auralex

I am not sure how to post or ask questions (I'm pretty new to this whole wikipedia editing). I wanted to ask for my posting of the "Auralex" page to be undeleted. I just saw that you are an administrator, and I thought you might be able to help. Or if you have any advice that would be great too. I just know Auralex is a reputable business in the music industry, and I have done a lot of research to get valid information. I don't know if it will show up by my post, but I am User: BryanLynn Thank you so much!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BryanLynn (talk • contribs) 15:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

File:StoneCanyonBand1.jpg & File:The Poor.jpg

Hello, Seresin! While I am certain you removed these images from the article Randy Meisner both in good faith and according to WP policy, I am asking for clarification before these images are deleted as orphaned, non-used images. Could you please point me directly to the policy that specifically excludes these images for inclusion under "fair-use" rationale for the article? I'm afraid I'm still "hazy" on the details. I'd hate to see these images deleted when no free alternative exists or could possibly be created. Cheers, and I appreciate your concern over these images. Doc9871 (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. The images are not contextually necessary for understanding the subject, Randy Meisner; we do not need an image of him with other bandmates to understand Meisner. You could probably add File:The Poor.jpg to The Poor, since a promotional FU shot of defunct bands is usually allowed. I don't see any such place for the Stone Canyon Band image, since no such article exists. ÷seresin 20:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hanna-Barbera move

WHY is the en dash for Hanna-Barbera not up for debate? You said in the edit summary of your re-move "if," implying that it is uncertain. Furthermore, I'll cite a precedent: Have Gun - Will Travel. I wanted to make the same move there for the exact same reasons but could not due to some unrelated fault, asked for administrative help (See here) and I got it! The move was made. (I'll put your talk page on my watchlist pending resolution of this discussion, so you can reply right here and I'll be informed.) --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If the phrase "Hanna–Barbera" requires a disjunctive dash, then the title of the article will have one. The text of the article indicates it does require an en dash, so the title will match—that is not uncertain. As for the article you cite, the first point to clarify is that we don't do precedent on Wikipedia. Second, having an administrator perform a routine (and, importantly) uncontested move is not to be taken as approval. Finally, the text and this indicate a disjunctive dash is required. A spaced en dash seems to be better, so I plan to move it to that. The MOS does not defer to a script. I do not use the tool you use, but I anticipate it is a problem restricted to you as I've not seen anything that would follow if the problem were more widespread. This may not be true, but, to be honest, I'm not that concerned. Ask whoever codes the tool if it can be fixed, get used to the glitch, or stop using the tool. ÷seresin 22:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Saying "The text of the article indicates it does require an en dash" does not explain how it does so. I have no idea whatsoever what you refer to here and categorically demand such an explanation.
2. Who says "we don't do precedent on Wikipedia" other than you? (I'll concede that the "Have Gun" title involves a different kind of dash, and was a precedent only in demonstrating administrative acknowledgement that the disabling of popups by at least some punctuation "inserts" exists and can potentially be grounds for changing such in an article title.)
3. "Having an administrator perform a routine (and, importantly) uncontested move is not to be taken as approval" is rubbish. That is exactly what it is, approval. No administrator should respond to a request without determining if it is the proper thing to do in that situation under Wiki guidelines and rules. That's what an administrator does, he (or she) administers the rules. Period.
4. The tool was put into place to be used and is too useful to be discarded on your casual grounds. The fact that the administrator performed the "Have Gun" move with that the stated ground for the request, and that my undoing a similarly disabling move involving the ellipses in It's a Bird...It's a Plane...It's Superman was not challenged by the person who replaced the sets of three periods with some form of collective insert ellipses in the first place indicates that my claim of the effect was conceded. Both times. There is no reason to suspect that the disabling of popups is limited to me, other than the fact that such enables you to fault the foundation of my position. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

1. I thought it was obvious. The text indicates the words require an en dash, because, well, the text uses an en dash.
2. We do things by consensus, and consensus can change. Just because we did one thing one way a week ago does not mean we will do another the same way today.
3. Not really. Admins do not look at facts and decide the best course of action, they interpret and execute consensus. The fact that your RM received no response is interpreted as consensus in favor. So AA only executed consensus. I suggest you get your facts about administrators straight before coming here and telling me what for.
4. It's not my casual grounds, it's our MOS.

You can respond here again if you wish. I have nothing else particularly to say. Move it back and I will block you. ÷seresin 22:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Since you say it is just a matter of making the rendering in the title and that in the text match, maybe it's the text that needs to be changed. Your position really needs better support than that. Try again.
2. I am shocked by your linking in a Wiki-guideline stating unequivocally, "consensus can change," as that makes you the first administrator in my experience (which is sizable over the last three years) to so much as admit that to be a possibility. Several have stonewalled disputes by stating that what's in place is consensus and implying that any further discussion is therefore impossible; in other words, administrative consensus appears to be contrary to that posted rule! I have found that position quite illogical and in any future disputes that might arise I will link-in that myself; thanks. On the other hand, I do concede (to those other admins, not to you since you claim a very different position) that established consensus should not be thrown out too easily. You on the other hand, want it to be ignored when it contradicts you, and apparently for no other reason.
3. Wikipedia should understand what words actually mean before it uses them. Period. Furthermore, I deny that noting a lack of dissent at the moment is "interpret[ing] and execut[ing] consensus." It is entirely possible that no other rank-and-file editors noticed my request, as they should have voted yay or nay if they had and possessed an opinion on it one way or the other. Besides, admins obviously should deal with consensus that already exists relevant to a point that they are requested to help with. Mandatorily.
4. The MOS? This is doubly irrelevant. First, you claim in #1 that your move was just a matter of making the title match the text. If there is something in the MOS that states which sort of dash should be used in this circumstance, that is what you should have pointed out there, but it isn't. Second, the only thing under discussion in #4 was your blaming the disabling of popups on my computer instead of on Wikipedia's programming, that I should therefore quit using the tool, and my response that you had no legitimate grounds for your assumption that the problem is at my end. Absolutely and irrefutably nothing else. The Manual of Style just doesn't come into play there at all.

Clearly you are throwing out whatever comes to your mind to stand by the position you have already committed yourself to, with no thought given to the statements' actual validity. This whole thing here is yet another example (of many in my aforementioned experience) of an administrator believing that his or her edits, statements, and unsupported assertions are not open to dispute or discussion, which is arrogance to the detriment of the encyclopedia: NOBODY IS PERFECT. Given records observed during my three years-plus here, it is quite clear that no individual administrator has the authority/ability to block an editor at his/her own discretion, not any longer. They used to, certainly, but frequent abuse of the option resulted in its discontinuation. I'd have been blocked at least three times by now if it was still that easy, but it hasn't happened even once. Let me repeat one thing: "Try again." If you don't respond, at least to #s 1 & 4 where I made very solid points directly related to the move under dispute, you really should lose your admin status. --Tbrittreid (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please enough with the bold and italic bold. It doesn't make your points more valid and it is rude.
I don't think the text needs to be changed, as the words should have an en dash between them. I assumed you were familiar enough with our MOS—since you've been here for three whole years, as you keep saying—to know that we use dashes. The phrase requires a dash and so it gets a dash in both text and title; it's that simple. We don't change that because your tool can't handle it. That is all I have to say on the content issue at hand. As a side note, I certainly can and may block you if I think you ought to be. I can be wrong, and I can be overturned, but I do not need to get others' opinions first. For the record, the struck line is a general statement about blocking without prior discussion—to which I still subscribe—in response to Tbrittreid's; it was not a statement about my blocking this editor. I will not be blocking Tbritttreid, because resulting furor from claims of involvement would be more trouble than they are worth. ÷seresin 03:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The use of bold and italicized bold is for emphasis not validity, and my points are indeed valid while yours are not. You have yet to cite any statement from the MOS that indicates one form of dash over the other here, and at one point you flatly stated you were merely making the title match the text in this regard and nothing else. You in fact said multiple times "The text of the article indicates that it does require an en dash" or words to that exact effect. I finally forced you to clarify your point and admit that it was indeed nothing more than that the title and text needed to match, and since then you have been claiming the MOS says it should be an en dash rather than a keyed dash here, but you will not say how or where it does so, and it was not in any way, shape, or form your original claim. The tool is not mine but Wikipedia's. The record proves conclusively that an individual administrator can no longer unilaterally block an editor for refusing to kiss @$$. Quit lying. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have concluded that you are trolling or being intentionally difficult, because it is unfathomable at this point that you do not understand. Read WP:MOSDASH like you should have already and spare me from having to deal with your nonsense any further please. ÷seresin 02:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read the linked-in section of the MOS, and I see absolutely no support of your position, not one word that would apply to two surnames being combined as a company name, regardless of what kind of dash is indicated as appropriate (which probably explains why you hadn't done so earlier; now you hope the mere existence of the link will look good in your favor). There is nothing for me to understand, let alone for you to find my not understanding it unfathomable. On the other hand, I find it unfathomable that you fail to understand that I won't let you get away with your blatantly false representations of the situation. I again point out the FACT that you had made absolutely no mention of the MOS in your originally given reasons for the move, and did so only after I proved that what you did give was invalid. Your repeatedly dismissing Wikipedia:tools/Navigation popups as unimportant, disabled by a fault in my computer, and "my" tool is proof of your willingness to misrepresent facts to your personal benefit. And you clearly equate "being intentionally difficult" with "refusing to agree with me no matter how wrong I am." There has been absolutely no "nonsense" in any of my postings here, which is more than can be said of yours. By definition, I don't even believe your stated reason for striking your statement standing by your false claim of being able to unilaterally block me; I have no doubt that you tried to do so and found that you could not. I now conclude that you are being arrogant to the detriment of the encyclopedia as I previously suggested you appeared. --Tbrittreid (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A few additional points, beginning with a partial recap. You started out supporting your move of Hanna-Barbera by claiming it was to make the title match the text. (Come to that, I have no idea beyond your implication that the text is in fact consistent in this regard; given the piece meal way that this, like all long-standing articles here, has been constructed I'd be very surprised if it is as I've seen the like in many other articles.) When I explained how that failed to back up the move because changing the text instead of the title was just as valid an option to that effect, you suddenly began claiming the MOS, in no more specific terms than that, and consistently acting as if you'd never cited a completely different ground. Under those circumstances, I am not obligated to sort through the MOS to find what you allege backs you up (Your words to me in your most recent post here: "Read WP:MOSDASH like you should have already...."), but you are obliged to be more specific. When you finally did link in a specific section (the quoted sentence just back there), it utterly failed to support you. In fact, as it clearly defines a "disjunctive dash" as one with a space on each side of it which is patently irrelevant here, it actually demonstrated that you were in error to use that term. In fact, I see no evidence that the short dash to be lifted from the Wiki markup box and the one made with the conventional key are anything but two different ways to accomplish the same effect, just as the ellipsis made similarly and the one of three consecutive key-made periods definitely are (see the above-mentioned "move" of It's a Bird...It's a Plane...It's Superman). If there is any effect on an article caused by choosing between these two dashes (in other words, this isn't about the long one so don't try to duck the point by bringing it up), it is an almost microscopic difference in length (and I did say "if"), and it is inconceivable that a usage distinction can be based on that. "Navigation popups" is a Wikipedia-provided tool which is an extremely useful and labor & time saving device, and the fact that the markup box's dash (and the ellipsis) in an article's title disables it in Wikilinks to said article is a factor that is unreasonable to ignore. Your completely indefensible citing of the MOS relevant to point 4 about your claiming that the disabling fault was in my computer instead of Wikipedia's programming with no grounds whatsoever to assume that other than convenience to your position, your subsequently labelling Navpops my tool, and your not dealing with these when I pointed them out, are extremely difficult to interpret as anything but "being intentionally difficult," which you had the gall to accuse me of. Please demonstrate some good faith in this matter and discuss these points reasonably, fairly, and with fidelity to reality. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I put one of each dash side by side in an edit window, clicked on Preview, and the difference was more than microscopic. I was wrong there and *I* admit it, no problem. However, it is minimal, especially within text, and I still find genuine, rather than arbitrary, basis for a usage distinction on it inconceivable. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you want me to say. I'm not sure how you can read MOSDASH and not see how it supports using an en dash, so I don't know how to go about proving it to you. I've had enough of your hostile tone here, so as far as I'm concerned there's nothing I have to say. ÷seresin 00:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you think you can't prove it to me if it's actually there, or for that matter how you think it is actually there. Quote something from the MOS and explain how it means what you claim if it's there. The fact that you won't acknowledge your total change of grounds for the move, that the first ground as given was invalid, your misrepresentation of navpops, and/or your erroneous mention of "disjunctive dash" reeks of bad faith. You seem to equate "disagreeing with you" with "hostile" which also does you no service. Since I'm discussing the specifics and you don't but instead attack me, it is you who are hostile. I want you to explain where the MOS says that the short dash created with the key and the short dash lifted from the insert/markup box are two different dashes with separate usages. Not only do I not see where it says this, I simply do not see how this can be the case by anything but arbitrary declaration, and the disabling of Wikipedia's navpops tool by one of them eliminates that being a reasonable thing to do. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

My original justification for the move is not invalid. The text indicates this warrants an en dash is and was correct.

En dashes (–) have three distinct roles.

1. To indicate disjunction. There are three uses.

• To stand for and between independent elements (diode–transistor logic, Michelson–Morley experiment).

snip

En dashes in page names

When naming an article, a hyphen is not used as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title, for example in Eye–hand span.

Is this enough quotation for you? Wikipedia did not make up en dashes and hyphens, nor the physical or typographical differences between the two. We use them the same way (mostly) as other style guides. ÷seresin 23:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You: "My original justification for the move was not invalid. The text indicates this warrants an en dash is and was correct." Now you're just flat lying. When I demanded a explanation as to just how the text so indicated, you posted, "The text indicates the words require an en dash, because, well, the text uses an en dash." Absolutely all that you say there is that you are making the title have the same dash that is used in the text. Nothing else, and any denial of that will be another lie. That is invalid, as the same effect could be reached by changing the dash in the text instead; more work, but just as appropriate. Invalid, PERIOD. Your choice of dash for no other reason is further weakened by the fact that it disables Navigation popups in any Wikilink of the article's title. "Wikipedia did not make up en dashes and hyphens" from you is highly dubious, combining your already documented misrepresentations, distortions and lies with the fact that I have never encountered the term en dash anywhere but Wikipedia in my entire 56 years of life, including ten years on the internet. I repeat from a previous post here, the fact that there is only the very slightest difference in appearance between the insert/markup box's dash and the conventional key's dash in text (and absolutely none in the edit field - I just checked right here) means there can be no justification for saying that each has separate and exclusive usages, especially since the one from the box, when a Wikilink is made containing a word in which it is used, disables the Wikipedia-provided and very useful tool Navigation popups. Furthermore, note my terms: I describe the two dashes we are arguing about by how they are created. Your newly provided quotes do not tell me that en dash means the dash from the insert/markup box and that only, not the one from the key as well and are just two different ways of making the same mark. If you can convince me of your claimed distinction between the two is in fact policy, then I will go to the MOS section's talk page, explain all these problems, and they will surely either admit that we should not make an arbitrary and unjustifiable distinction that causes such problems or fix the problem. While I admit to misreading the definition of disjunctive ("Disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except...." and the exceptions don't matter here) and profusely apologize for it, you try this: Dash#En dash which leads to a brief section that reads in its entirety, "The en dash, or n dash, n-rule, etc., (-) is usually half the width of an em dash. [New line] The en dash is used in ranges, such as 6-10 years, read as, 'six to ten years'." The bolds are in the original, I had no way of knowing which way the short dash in that parenthesis was made, and the quote is followed by a separated sub-section discussing "Ranges of values." No further elaboration of this definition. How's that for a quote? If en dash means the short dash from the box and em dash means the one from the key then Wikipedia is not even trying to live up to that definition/distinction in practice. If, as my three-year experience here indicates, an em dash is the long dash, also to be lifted from the box (and is an alternative to hitting the short-dash key twice in most venues), then Wikipedia's definition of en dash here draws no distinction between the short dashes from the box and the key. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am done discussing with you. You are clearly an idiot. This: - is a hyphen. This: – is an en dash. This: — is an em dash. They are not the same. They have different uses. Wikipedia did not make these marks up. Wikipedia gets to decide how to use them as our house style, and how we have done so is outlined at MOSDASH. Go fight with them if you think it's a problem. Hopefully they will be able to get you to comprehend this. ÷seresin 00:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I taught myself to read at the age of 4 years. My IQ has been measured at 128 (then stated to be the cusp for Mensa International membership), 131, 136 and 138 (in chronological order, for whatever that might be worth). On the occasion of each test (and this is not reflected in those scores) I challenged the validity of two questions (two questions on each test); the high level of those scores as they are demands that dismissing said challenges is ill-advised at best, and that they therefore probably underrepresent my actual IQ. This record is in no way, shape, or form compatible with being an idiot. If anything, the problem is that you are my intellectual inferior and incapable of comprehending my posts. After all, you have in fact failed to deal with any specific thing I've said.

While it is true that what you label there as hyphen and en dash have different widths, the difference is too little to be readily detectable in usages within running text, and they have no width difference at all in a Wikipedia edit field. This last is compelling evidence that the difference in finished text is unintentional, the result of a a glitch in the programming or something. All you have to do is show me someplace where Wikipedia says that the short dash created with the conventional key and the short dash lifted from the insert/markup box are two different punctuation marks with different usages rather than two different ways to make the same mark, and I will take the remaining problem (the disabling of navpops) elsewhere, as I said I would in my previous post. That your response to that post made no such effort but instead resorted to name calling (again) is quite telling. I currently maintain that:

1. The Wikipedia definition of en dash which I linked in
2. The minimality of the difference in their widths in Wiki text
3. The absolute absence of difference in widths in the Wiki edit field

add up to there being no Wikipedia policy of considering the short dash made from the key and the short dash made from the I/M box as two different punctuation marks, but two different ways to make an en dash. Your simply asserting and insisting otherwise does not prove a thing (especially given your record of changing grounds for the move when I demonstrated that your first ground was less than valid and later indefensibly reasserting it, grossly misrepresenting Wikipedia Navigation popups, etc.). Prove it, and I will take the navpops problem elsewhere, but I do not dare start a "fight" with them when at this point I fully believe that you are wrong. --Tbrittreid (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You wrote that you hope that people at MOSDASH will be able to get me "to comprehend this." In fact, I comprehend exactly what you are saying and deny that it is valid, calling your comprehension into question. However, I will try in terms and format that I hope will be simple and clear enough to get through to you.

• Fact: Punctuation marks by definition exist to cause an effect on the reader, to make the person read that particular piece of text in a certain way or to communicate a certain meaning to him/her. Two punctuation marks that are visually indistinguishable from each other in casual reading of the text (not exclusively when placed in close proximity facilitating comparison) and have separate usages is an oxymoron. They have absolutely no right whatsoever to be 100% arbitrary; none. If the reader can't tell which he/she is encountering, they can't convey different meanings to him/her, which is the only purpose of their separate existences, and they are 100% arbitrary. The reader identifies the intended specific meaning/point/whatever of the mark by the context only, because the marks are not different enough to limit the range of potential purposes beyond the entire collection of those of both marks. Any intended distinction between the two is arbitrary.

This point alone constitutes a strong argument for going with the mark that does not cause functionality problems with Wikipedia's own tools, but there is more, so read on.

• Fact: Not only do these two dashes fail to be effectively distinguishable in Wikipedia text, they are absolutely identical in a Wikipedia edit field. (Obviously, I can't include an edit window in my post, so you'll have to check that out for yourself but, unless you are performing very extreme cranial-rectal insertion, if you do so you will see that this is the case; I've just checked it myself for the third time over the course of this discussion.)
• Fact: I have never encountered the terms en dash (ndash) and/or em dash (mdash) anywhere but Wikipedia.
• Fact: A check just TODAY revealed that no other edit/composition field on any of the various web sites I frequent has such an insert/markup box as found here. (The IMDb's boards do have a link labelled "Markup enabled" which when clicked on opens up a window explaining how to make italics, bolds, colors, links [site and email addresses both] and happy [and other] faces, but not a thing concerning punctuation that cannot be made with the keyboard!). Hyphens and dashes can be made only by clicking the dash (or whatever you want to call it) key on the board, once or twice depending on the width desired. There are no two nearly identical short dashes anywhere else but Wikipedia.

There is only one sane way these facts add up: that any alleged distinction drawn between the short dash made with the markup box and the one made with the key was made up by Wikipedia, and that the lack of any visual distinction whatsoever in the edit field says the minimal visual distinction in text only was unintentional. Can you explain to me how this addition is faulty, or are you capable of only asserting that you are right and name-calling? --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{User:IBen/TB|Mono|WP:POST/N|ts=01:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)}} (edit conflict) mono 01:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I do? ÷seresin 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoops.--mono 03:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. ÷seresin 03:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{User:IBen/TB|WP:POST/N}} Did you ever finish the "Features and Admins" beat? mono 00:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. ÷seresin 02:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Three Little Maids

Hi. The discussion on the file in question has been going on for 21 days - well over the 7 days I believe is recommended. As far as I can see the consensus is to keep the image. If so, why isn't an admin (such as yourself) coming along and closing the discussion? Either way, a decision needs to be made as the process is dragging on. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't closed it because I participated. As for why there aren't more admins closing FfDs, it's likely because FfD is often a den of despair full of people who don't understand our image policies and get wildly upset when their images are deleted. ÷seresin 20:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Fair point well taken! Sorry for the misunderstanding earlier. Jack1956 (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. ÷seresin 20:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)